> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Jerry G. Chiuan wrote:
>
> > > A bit above the previous quote, RFC2616 says:
> > >
> > > Clients SHOULD include both header fields when a no-cache
> > > request is sent to a server not known to be HTTP/1.1 compliant.
> >
> > Sorry, my english is not good enough to understand its description
> > what does it mean by a server "not known to be HTTP/1.1 compliant" ?
>
> That you don't know if the proxy supports 1.1 or not..
>
> > Does it mean there are still certain servers which don't follow
HTTP/1.1?
>
> Yes there are.

So, the purpose of not only using "Pragma: no-cache" but also
"Cache-control: no-cache" is in case certain proxy/server is not *100%*
HTTP/1.1 compliant.

Therefore, they only recognize "Cache-control: no-cache", but "Pragma:
no-cache"?
If that was the case, sound pretty wierd since they don't obey
backward-compatibility #$%@&...

- Jerry

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email sponsored by: Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo
The Event For Linux Datacenter Solutions & Strategies in The Enterprise
Linux in the Boardroom; in the Front Office; & in the Server Room
http://www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
Received on 2003-10-18